45th Week Topic: After the Red Sea Crisis Subsides

Market news on November 4, 2025: With Israel and Hamas reaching a fragile ceasefire agreement, the chairman of the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) stated that there have been initial signs of improvement in the canal's navigation conditions.

General Omar Rabie met with representatives of 20 shipping companies at the headquarters of the Authority in Ismailia, Egypt. He said that a total of 229 ships "returned" to the Suez Canal in October, which was the highest monthly figure since the attacks by the Houthi militants near Yemen on merchant ships led to a sharp drop in navigation volume. Rabie pointed out that the Sharm El Sheikh Peace Summit "had a positive impact on regional stability, prompting many ships to choose to navigate through the canal again", and particularly praised CMA CGM Shipping Group for recently dispatching two ultra-large container ships through the waterway. The online shipping data of HIFLEET fleet shows that the navigation volume of the canal from July to October increased slightly by 1.68% year-on-year, while the freight volume of the Red Sea during the same period increased more significantly by 10%, mainly due to the passage of larger-tonnage vessels.

According to the overall display of HIFLEET shipping big data, the navigation volume of the canal has not shown any substantial improvement. Most large shipping enterprises still prefer to take a detour through Africa. Taking the data of container ships traveling south via the Suez Canal as an example, the number of ships per day has remained between 3 and 5 for the past three months, occasionally reaching 8 on a single day. There is no obvious indication that container ships are returning to the Red Sea route in full. This result indicates that the container ship market, on the one hand, is to avoid the risks brought by the Houthi militants, and on the other hand, can obtain more profits by traveling a longer ton-mileage. According to the HIFLEET vessel congestion data, the average number of vessels passing through the Suez Canal per day in the past three months was approximately 20, with an average waiting time for navigation of around 20 hours, which is basically the same as the navigation data in the previous six months, and is much lower than more than twice the level before the Houthi militants launched their first attack in November 2023.

To attract shipowners to return to the Suez Canal, the Suez Canal Authority launched a discount policy earlier this year, but the effect remains controversial and not obvious. According to HIFLEET shipping big data, in the past month, 69 south bound container ships have passed through the Suez Canal, which is basically the same as the number of container ships passing through in the previous months. Large container liners have difficulty quickly adjusting their route plans, and they are also concerned about the situation in the Red Sea, which are the main reasons for their slow response to the incentive measures introduced by the Suez Canal Authority for container ships. Market shipping experts suggest that the authority should extend the incentive measures to oil tankers, bulk carriers and general cargo ships, as these types of vessels can usually adjust their navigation plans more quickly.

After the calmness of the Red Sea situation, ships will return to the Red Sea. This will have both positive and challenging impacts on the global shipping market. The core aspects are the improvement of supply chain efficiency and the reduction of logistics costs. However, shipping companies will face intensified competition and severe market fluctuations.

After the Red Sea resumed normal navigation, freight rates for goods transportation dropped significantly. The bargaining power of shipping companies weakened, and the logistics costs for shippers decreased due to the reduction in freight and fuel surcharges. The Suez Canal returned to its main route, and ships taking the Cape of Good Hope route gradually disappeared. In the short term, congestion may occur in Europe and the Suez Canal. The pressure of excess capacity in shipping capacity intensified, and the revenue of shipping companies was under pressure. The development of alternative routes such as the Arctic route was restricted.

There is uncertainty regarding the resumption of normal traffic in the Red Sea. The fundamental improvement of the security situation and the reduction of insurance costs are the key factors for shipping companies to return. High insurance costs will delay the return. In the long term, based on the current improvement in the situation in the Red Sea, major shipping companies are likely to gradually and systematically resume navigation, avoiding severe impacts on the market and ports.

The improvement in the future of shipping in the Red Sea is a positive sign for the global supply chain. However, the era of high rates for shipping companies has come to an end, and the competition among containers will become more intense.

46th Week Topic: Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ships: A New Option for the Shipping Industry’s Net-Zero Transition

Nuclear-powered merchant ships are expected to become a new option for the net-zero transformation of the shipping industry. However, the practical exploration and challenges of how ships will safely utilize nuclear power in the future coexist. According to the latest research by the Norwegian Classification Society (DNV), if the shipping industry adheres to the net-zero emission target by 2050, nuclear power is expected to become one of the main economic choices for shipowners by 2050. Previously, due to multiple factors such as economic costs and regulatory requirements, marine small reactors were commercially unfeasible. However, the current situation of high and scarce prices of green fuels has brought nuclear power back into the industry's focus. But the research also points out that if the shipping industry abandons the emission reduction target, the promotion of nuclear-powered merchant ships may be a long way off.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is pushing for the shipping industry to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The core measures include imposing a carbon tax on high-polluting vessels, and the funds raised will be used to support the development of green technologies. However, on October 17th this year, some countries raised objections on the grounds that the timetable was too strict and the plan details were unreasonable. Eventually, a vote was held and the process was postponed by one year, casting a long-term uncertainty shadow over this emission reduction strategy.

If the global fleet achieves the current net-zero emission target, in a realistic cost scenario, the proportion of nuclear-powered ships in 2050 could reach 16%; if the net-zero emission target is postponed to 2070, this proportion will drop to 10%; if no decarbonization efforts are made at all, the proportion of nuclear-powered ships in 2050 will be only 1%.

The stronger the determination to decarbonize, the more prominent the commercial value of nuclear power becomes. Even if the cost of reactors is relatively high, large-scale application can still be achieved. Currently, shipyards are actively exploring the implementation plans for nuclear power, weighing its technical complexity against the core advantage of near-zero emissions.

Chinese shipyards have taken the lead in developing nuclear-powered large vessel design projects. Since no fuel tanks or chimneys need to be installed, the cargo capacity of these vessels is approximately 5% higher than that of traditional ships. Modern small modular reactors and their accompanying safety and operation systems can be installed in spaces equivalent to those of modern ship engine rooms. Without the use of marine heavy oil, the round-trip time for the Pacific route between Asia and North America can be shortened from the traditional 60 days to 40 days, allowing shipowners and operators to increase approximately 5 voyages per year, and the benefits are quite attractive.

The core challenge in addressing the power demand of ships is how to enable the nuclear power source to respond rapidly to changes in the power requirements of the vessel. This is crucial for the maneuvering operations of ships when entering or leaving ports. The solution employs supercritical carbon dioxide cycle technology. By maintaining carbon dioxide at critical pressure and temperature, it acquires properties that are intermediate between those of a gas and a liquid, thereby enabling flexible load adjustment. Additionally, from a safety perspective, even in the event of collisions, grounding, or sinking accidents, the nuclear reactor can be guaranteed to be safe and the ship's survival capability can be ensured.

Although the exploration of nuclear-powered merchant ships has made some progress, it still faces multiple formidable challenges. At the regulatory level, relevant rules urgently need to be improved. Nuclear-powered vessels require multiple institutions to jointly adjust the regulatory framework, including IMO and IAEA, involving a large number of rule changes that were not previously covered. Currently, IMO has initiated a new workflow and is working on updating its current brief rules related to nuclear power to respond to the growing industry concern for nuclear-powered shipping.

In terms of technology and safety, a comprehensive assessment of the risks associated with ship nuclear power needs to be conducted. It is necessary to ensure the safety of the nuclear devices in cases such as collisions, grounding, and sinking; to prevent security threats and intentional sabotage risks; and continuous technological research and development are still required for the miniaturization and integration of the ship's nuclear power system.

47th Week Topic: Marine Insurance Market

The global marine and energy insurance market is estimated to be worth 39 billion US dollars. Europe remains the dominant player in the ship insurance market, accounting for nearly 50% of the market share. The United Kingdom holds an important position in it, while Asia follows closely with a 26% share. Previously, from 2019 to 2023, the market maintained a strong annual growth rate of 7%, and in the past two years, the growth rate of the insurance market has slowed down to only 3% per year.

The shipping industry is a constantly evolving and cyclical industry. Currently, the size of ships is constantly expanding, and the composition of the fleet is becoming increasingly complex. Trade routes have been adjusted due to local conflicts and turmoil. Maritime technology is also reshaping ships and the global supply chain.

In recent years, the new underwriting capacity in the market has increased significantly, leading to stable or even falling prices in some areas (especially the wholesale insurance market in the United Kingdom, hull insurance for small ships, and offshore wind power insurance). In contrast, the rates for more complex insurance types such as war risk insurance and shipbuilding insurance have remained stable - the clients of these businesses value long-term sustainable partnerships more. Ship war risk insurance has become the core growth engine of the current marine insurance market, and the role of the Asian market in it is increasingly prominent. The insurance market warns that the decline in insurance rates does not reflect an increase in risk complexity. Those aggressive insurance market participants may withdraw halfway due to market changes and financial reasons, and customers may find themselves in a situation where claims cannot be processed.

Several major loss events that have attracted much attention recently have highlighted the scale of risks faced by the industry. The Baltimore Dali collision accident that occurred in 2024 and the fire incident at the Lürssen shipyard both exposed the huge potential risks of large ships and high-value offshore projects.

Currently, fire accidents in the maritime industry are becoming more frequent, especially fires on car ships and container ships often result in huge losses, and the claim amounts for liability insurance keep rising due to cost increases, and human error has gradually become a key factor in triggering risks. Crew quality and human resources are the core of preventing huge maritime losses.

Looking to the future, the risks in the maritime industry will become increasingly complex: large ships, new propulsion systems, climate change, geopolitical unrest, interconnected supply chains, all will jointly shape the future of the industry. And this poses new requirements for insurance companies.

48th Week Topic: South Korean Ferry Hits Island; Captain and Two Others May Face Arrest

On November 19, 2025, the Queen Jenuvia II ferry collided with an island. The initial investigation pointed to the distraction of the crew. After the initial investigation, it was found that the cause of the ferry collision with the island in South Korea was related to the lookout crew's distraction while using their mobile phones. Currently, the South Korean Coast Guard has applied for arrest warrants for the captain, chief officer, and helmsman of the ferry.

The ferry was named "Queen Jenuvia II" and was built in 2021. It has a total tonnage of 26,500 tons and can carry 850 passengers. It is a passenger-cargo ferry (ropax) type and is operated by the Seaworld Express Ferry Company from South Korea. The accident occurred at 8:16 p.m. local time on November 19th. At that time, the ferry was traveling at a speed of 22 knots and was approaching the waters near Jangsan-do Island in Sinan County when it collided with an uninhabited island. According to the passengers' description to local media, the ferry "suddenly tilted and made a loud noise", the impact was extremely strong, and the people inside the cabin fell down. The latest market information shows that 27 passengers were sent to the hospital with minor injuries, and the accident did not cause any serious injuries or deaths.

Currently, the captain, the chief officer and the helmsman have been charged with "gross negligence" and "endangering the lives of passengers and crew". The identities of the three have not been made public yet. The investigation shows that the crew members committed multiple violations at the time of the accident:

1. Inappropriate use of automatic navigation: The shipping lane leading to Mokpo Port in this area is narrow and busy. According to regulations, it is necessary to switch to manual navigation mode, but the involved ferry remained in automatic navigation mode throughout the journey, causing the vessel to miss critical turning points and run aground;
2. The captain left his post without permission: The coast guard stated that during the period when the ferry was crossing a critical waterway and required the captain's continuous supervision of the navigation, the captain was not on the bridge.
3. Seafarers' Distraction and Negligence: The chief officer initially claimed that the accident was caused by "a malfunction of the steering gear", but later admitted that at the time of the incident, he was using his mobile phone to read the news, thus being distracted; the helmsman was also found to have failed to focus on monitoring the gyrocompass (a crucial navigation device for the vessel), indicating a state of distraction.
4. Violation of navigation rules: The preliminary investigation also revealed that the ferry did not reduce its speed to the mandatory limit as required by the navigation channel, and failed to communicate with the Mokpo Entry Control Station before the grounding incident.

The involved ferry has been successfully raised and is currently being towed to Mokpo Port, and then transferred to a dry dock at a shipyard in Yeosu City for maintenance. From the photos at the scene, it can be seen that the bow of the ferry was severely damaged. The Mokpo Coast Guard stated on Monday (after the incident), while investigating a vessel traffic service (VTS) operator simultaneously, to determine whether the operator failed to detect the signs that "Queen Jenny II" deviated from the planned route in time, thereby missing the opportunity for intervention. Currently, the overall investigation of the accident is still ongoing.

Lee Jong-hoon, the CEO of Sea World High-Speed Ferry Company, issued a statement on the company's official website, expressing "the most sincere apologies to all users who have trusted and chosen our services". He stated that the company is taking all necessary support measures to avoid causing further inconvenience to passengers; at the same time, he promised to fully cooperate with the joint investigation team of the relevant departments to thoroughly clarify the details of the accident and comprehensively rectify the safety management system of all ship operations to prevent similar accidents from happening again. Sea World High-Speed Ferry is one of the larger ferry operators in South Korea, with its fleet consisting of 2 passenger-cargo ships, 1 high-speed ferry and 1 ro-ro (roll-on/roll-off) cargo ship.

The last major accident involving a passenger-cargo ship occurred in April 2014. A passenger-cargo ship with a total tonnage of 6,800 tons, named "Sewol" (built in 1994), sank. Among the 476 people on board, 304 died, and most of the victims were students.

49th Week Topic: Kyiv Strikes Shadow Tanker as Russia Threatens Maritime Blockade

Market news on December 3, 2025: Ukraine has officially confirmed that it has launched attacks on several shadow oil tankers recently. At the same time, Russia has once again made threats of cutting off Ukraine's sea access. Against the backdrop of the nearly four-year-long conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the efforts of US envoys to mediate peace in Russia, these series of actions have pushed the regional maritime security situation to a new state of tension.

In fact, controlling the ports in southern Ukraine was one of the core strategic goals of Russia at the beginning of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, this goal was only partially achieved in the end. Although the Russian army captured the Mariupol port in 2022, they lost Kherson during the Ukrainian army's counteroffensive that year. The key Black Sea coastal port of Odessa has been firmly under Ukrainian control since it was attacked by air strikes on the first day of the conflict.

Although the Russian army continues to launch attacks on Ukrainian shipping and port facilities, analysis indicates that Putin's claim of cutting off Ukraine's access to the sea is fundamentally unfeasible in practical terms. On one hand, retaliatory attacks by the Russian army against ships entering Ukrainian ports occur frequently. Even if the threat escalates, it will merely maintain the existing situation. On the other hand, Ukraine has previously lodged complaints with the International Maritime Organization, stating that the hundreds of attacks by the Russian army have caused extensive damage to port facilities, damaged over 38 ships, and resulted in the deaths of 118 civilians.

Ukraine has broken its silence and admitted to the two attacks that occurred in the Black Sea on November 28th. Within the same 24-hour period on the same day, the 2002-built "Kairos" oil tanker with a capacity of 150,000 tons and the 2018-built "Virat" oil tanker with a capacity of 115,600 tons were both attacked. And the day before, the 2009-built "Mersin" oil tanker with a capacity of 50,100 tons was suspected to have been attacked by magnetic mines off the coast of Dakar, Senegal, and experienced four explosions on board.

The attack incident triggered a chain reaction. The war insurance premiums for ships heading towards the port in Russia rose accordingly; a few days later, the management of the "Mersin" vessel directly halted all shipping operations related to Russia.

However, it is worth noting that since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, thousands of ships have sailed to Russian ports, while the number of attacks on Russian-related vessels is still less than double digits. Overall, Russia's shipping industry has not been substantially hindered.

Regarding the intentions behind Ukraine's current actions, opinions vary among the public. Some believe it is a one-time warning from Ukraine that has achieved its intended purpose and completed its mission. Others are concerned that this is the beginning of Ukraine's large-scale actions against Russian-related shipping.

Robert Peters from the security firm Ambrey pointed out that currently, the actions in Ukraine are still relatively limited. It remains uncertain whether they will increase their efforts to deter ship owners who, regardless of whether they comply with Western sanctions rules or not, are still conducting business with Russia. Some opinions also suggest that Ukraine's move is merely during the negotiation game stage, and it is showing externally that it still has the ability to carry out significant attention-grabbing actions.

The Russian media also frequently claimed that Ukraine's actions were supported by its European allies, but they have never provided any substantive evidence. The Russian intelligence agency had accused the UK in August of planning the "fake flag incident" of the shadow fleet, in an attempt to pave the way for further sanctions against Russia. Against this backdrop, Putin's threats against the allied vessels of Ukraine were interpreted as a warning to Ukraine and its allies, demanding that they not expand the scale of their destructive actions.

Looking back at the beginning of the year, the Russian military suffered seven attacks on their ships within seven months. To prevent such incidents, they spent millions of dollars establishing a new ship inspection system. Now, the Russian government is closely assessing the subsequent situation. However, analysts believe that even if Ukraine's access to the sea is cut off, the Ukrainian military's maritime drones and sabotage attacks will not cease.

Regardless of how the military plans of both Russia and Ukraine eventually play out, attacks on Russia's oil export system are likely to continue. The strikes by drones on Russia's oil pipelines, refineries, and port facilities will persist. And Ukraine may choose to continue such actions due to the limited effectiveness of this shadow fleet attack.

50th Week Topic: U.S. Navy Operations in the Caribbean Are Illegal

On December 5, 2025, market reports indicated that the US Navy engaged in an unauthorized firefight with suspected drug traffickers and terrorists in the Caribbean region, resulting in casualties among the crew. This incident has raised alarm in the region and on a broader scale. It has aroused strong public outrage, especially from the countries in the region. What is more worrying is that the boundaries between military actions and civil law enforcement are gradually blurring.

Carrying out the killing of a suspected criminal without proper legal procedures is not merely a simple tactical error; it directly targets the core of the international order based on rules, and simultaneously threatens the constitutional principles that regulate the exercise of power by the United States at sea. The crux of the issue is not whether drug trafficking constitutes a serious threat, but rather who has the legal authorization to deal with this threat? How should it be dealt with? And are the war tools being used instead of judicial tools?

The United States Navy is an operational force, regarded as the most proficient combat force in the world. Its existence is to deploy forces, deter opponents, and, when necessary, exert decisive and overwhelming military power. Its mission is not, nor has it ever been, to arrest civilians, collect evidence, or carry out law enforcement actions that entail legal responsibility. However, these precisely are the duties required for maritime interception operations in the Caribbean Sea. These duties must be fulfilled on the basis of restraint, due process, and legal accountability. This is why, from the constitutional and legal perspective, these duties are exclusive to the United States Coast Guard rather than the United States Army.

Since the early days of the United States' founding, law enforcement must be strictly distinguished from military operations. The US Constitution imposes strict restrictions on the use of military forces during peacetime. Congress retains the authority to define and punish crimes on the high seas; the president has no unilateral power to exercise this authority. This is why military police operations without explicit approval from Congress are prohibited, and why only the Coast Guard, since its establishment, has been granted inherent law enforcement authority in all armed forces.

According to Title 14 of the United States Code, the Coast Guard has extensive, clear and internationally recognized authority, including intercepting drugs, arresting suspected smugglers, conducting searches and seizures, and transferring individuals to the judicial process. In contrast, the Navy does not have such legal authorization.

International law further reinforces this distinction. Maritime law enforcement is governed by police law rather than war law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, international maritime practices, and bilateral agreements in the Caribbean region all rest on a core premise: law enforcement functions should be carried out by personnel who have received law enforcement training and are authorized to do so, rather than by combat forces that have received training in eliminating threats.

Even though the navy's actions may have tactical legitimacy in certain self-defense situations, they lack the structural legitimacy necessary for operation within a law enforcement framework. The Coast Guard is trained to capture suspects alive, collect admissible evidence, follow criminal procedure rules, and advance cases to the prosecution stage, rather than using force to resolve matters. The navy, on the other hand, is trained to eliminate threats rather than arrest suspects. These tasks are not mutually exclusive. When the boundaries are blurred, lives become unprotected, sometimes resulting in unnecessary sacrifices or illegal deprivation.

Relying on the navy to carry out interception operations would have far-reaching consequences, undermining regional trust, weakening the legitimacy of the United States, triggering international scrutiny and legal challenges, and disrupting the rule-based order on which the United States relies for other major maritime powers to abide by legal obligations.

The United States must not allow its military tools to be used as judicial tools. This is prohibited by the Constitution, forbidden by international law, and morally it demands that the United States do better. When it is the Coast Guard rather than the Navy that is on duty, the Caribbean region and the United States will be safer.

51st Week Topic: LNG Alternative Fuels Regain Attention

On December 17th, 2025, market news reported that the Taiwanese container shipping company Wan Hai Lines signed a shipbuilding agreement worth between 450 million and 492 million US dollars. It will entrust the CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding of China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation to build six 6,000 TEU LNG dual-fuel container ships. This order marks that Wan Hai Lines has deviated from its previous commitment to the pure methanol new ship development strategy and has officially shifted to the development direction of using LNG (liquefied natural gas) as the power fuel for ships.

Although the positioning of LNG as an alternative fuel is still subject to market debate, its application in the shipping industry has shown a trend of large-scale development. According to data from the Norwegian Classification Society (DNV), currently, more than 1,490 ships worldwide can use this fossil fuel, and another 1,000 LNG-powered ships have signed construction orders; in addition, 611 ships have obtained the "LNG Ready" certification (LNG-ready notation) issued by the classification society. From this set of data, it can be seen that LNG is no longer a niche transitional fuel; instead, it has the industrial foundation of a mature fuel.

The application of LNG fuel vessels can be traced back to Norway in 2000. At that time, to meet the emission regulations for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) within the region, local ferries were the first to adopt LNG as the power fuel. Subsequently, as discussions on the potential of reducing greenhouse gas emissions intensified within the industry, the market attention for LNG fuel vessels gradually expanded.

One of the core challenges in promoting alternative fuels is the issue of supply availability. LNG has broken the previous deadlock where shipowners were cautious about ordering ships due to concerns over supply, and fuel suppliers were reluctant to invest in production due to insufficient demand. DNV data shows that currently, 212 LNG refueling facilities have been built globally, and another 69 are under construction, forming a global supply network. In contrast, the layout of methanol refueling facilities is still lagging behind. Currently, only 25 ports have operational methanol refueling facilities, and there are only 20 ongoing projects.

Despite the continuous expansion of the application scale, the positioning of LNG as an alternative fuel still faces two major critical doubts:

1. Emission attribute controversy: Advocacy groups point out that LNG is essentially still a fossil fuel, and its exhaust emission process generates significant greenhouse gas emissions, thus it should not be regarded as the ultimate alternative option to traditional fossil fuels;
2. Asset impairment risk: A report released by University College London in early 2025 indicated that as more shipowners choose LNG-powered ships and LNG carriers, the related assets may face the risk of depreciation in value. The reason is that the decarbonization paths being discussed by international regulatory agencies may impose restrictions on investments related to fossil fuels such as LNG, eventually turning these assets into "stranded assets".

In conclusion, the main point of contention lies in whether LNG, which has already achieved a large-scale application in the mainstream fuel sector, can still be regarded as an alternative fuel that helps the shipping industry achieve a decarbonization transformation. Judging from the current data, the market has chosen LNG as a medium-term strategy for alternative fuels, and in the long term, there may be more attractive options for investors in alternative fuels for ships.

52nd Week Topic: 2025 Shipboard Fires Driving the Emergence of Ports of Refuge

After multiple major maritime accidents such as ship fires occurred near the Indian coast in 2025, the country plans to designate two ports as specialized emergency port centers to handle major maritime ship incidents.

In just three weeks in 2025, four container ship accidents occurred one after another, exposing the weaknesses of India's refuge port system - there are insufficient rescue personnel to handle the emergency situations of ship fires, ship damages and the goods on board in the dedicated emergency refuge ports. After this situation was disclosed at a maritime rescue conference in London, the relevant Indian departments immediately took action.

Among them, the fire incident on the "WAN HAI 503" vessel (built in 2005) in the 4333 TEU was particularly indicative of the lack of a professional ship accident handling center. The ship caught fire near the coast of Kerala, India in June 2025. Due to the refusal of ports in both India and Sri Lanka to admit it, it was forced to drift at sea for several months and was eventually towed to Jebel Ali Port in Dubai for safe disposal. Because it did not receive timely assistance, the ship and its cargo suffered almost total loss, and the crew endured great hardship.

Captain Harinder Singh, a senior official from the Indian maritime administration, stated that consultations have been initiated with the port authorities. Plans are in place to establish specialized ship shelter centers on both the east and west coasts of the country. The relevant coordination and arrangement work is underway and is expected to be completed within the next few years. With such emergency handling centers at the ports, shipowners and insurance companies should feel more at ease.

After a series of container ship fire accidents, insurance companies were confronted with huge bills. Besides the high cost of ship damage, the lengthy delays in seeking safe ports further exacerbated the maritime losses.

According to the guidelines of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), coastal countries are not obligated to accept damaged ships. However, in cases where it is feasible, they should provide shelter. Nevertheless, many coastal countries often delay or even refuse the entry of damaged ships into their ports due to concerns about triggering political backlash or public dissatisfaction.

Alan McKinnon, the chief claims officer of the British P&I Association, stated at the meeting that the association has recently faced two cases where it was struggling to find safe havens. In one of these cases, the daily cost was as high as 500,000 US dollars. The senior official of the European Maritime Safety Agency, Jacob Trein, pointed out: "This situation of lacking safe havens is somewhat shortsighted, as it does not mean that maritime disasters will disappear on their own." As ship sizes continue to increase, the risk of fires on board ships is also rising, and related concerns are growing. However, currently only a few ports have the ability to handle the aftermath of such major accidents. Rescue personnel often have to wait for weeks or even months to obtain entry permits from other ports, which adds millions more to the already high claims costs.

In maritime crisis management, the Jebel Ali Port in Dubai stands out as one of the few professional centers in the region capable of handling complex aftermath and clean-up operations of maritime disasters. In 2018, the "Maersk Honam" vessel (built in 2017), carrying 15,262 TEUs, caught fire near the coast of Oman, resulting in the death of 5 crew members. During the aftermath handling process of this incident, the Jebel Ali Port accumulated rich experience.

The government of the United Arab Emirates is currently studying whether to officially recognize the qualifications for a safe haven port, in order to ensure that the related services meet high standards. Nowadays, there are rating systems in all industries, and perhaps a specific rating system could also be established for safe haven ports.

The EU learned its lesson in 2011. At that time, the 6,732-TEU "MSC Flaminia" vessel exploded and caught fire, resulting in the death of three crew members. However, ports in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Spain all refused to allow it to enter, exposing the system flaws of the EU in dealing with major maritime disasters. From this experience, the EU has since conducted six simulation exercises, aiming to promote collaboration among coastal countries, rescue agencies, insurance companies, and shipowners, and ensure the timely and safe handling of various complex maritime rescue incidents.